Analytic Culture in the U.S. Intelligence Community (PDF) - CIA

CHAPTER TWELVE
0.15 and for interactive videodiscs, the effect sizes range from 0.17 to 0.66
depending on the population. 8 The effect size for flight simulation is 0.54 and
the effect size for tutorials range from 0.25 to 0.41 depending on the presentation
of the tutorial material. 9
Although the effect sizes for instructional technology range from 0.15 to 0.66
standard deviations, they all report favorable findings when compared to conventional
instruction.
There are many possible
explanations for
the differences in
instructional technology
effectiveness; it
might be the result of
population differences,
system differences,
interactivity
or individualization.
From a purely utilitarian
point of view,
the reason may not
be all that important.
If, at the very least,
using instructional
technology forces the
producer to rethink
the content of the
course to match the
delivery system, then
revisiting the pedagogy may be enough to produce the positive effect sizes. Whatever
reason for the changes in effectiveness, the use of instructional technology
saves instructional time, overhead costs, and results in a higher level of achievement
for the students in a variety of domains.
7
The abbreviations in figure one: CBT=Computer Based Training, DI=Distance Instruction,
IVD=Interactive Video Disc, SIM=Simulation. More than 300 research studies were used to
develop these effect sizes, see Chen-Lin Kulik., James Kulik and Barbara Shwalb, “Effectiveness
of Computer-Based Adult Education: A Meta-Analysis”; Chen-Lin Kulik and James Kulik,
“Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education in Colleges”; Rob Johnston and J. Dexter Fletcher,
A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Computer-Based Training for Military Instruction.
8
Godwin Chu and Wilbur Schramm, Learning from Television; J. Dexter Fletcher Effectiveness
and Cost of Interactive Videodisc Instruction in Defense Training and Education; J. Dexter
Fletcher, “Computer-Based Instruction: Costs and Effectiveness.”
9
R. T. Hays, J. W. Jacobs, C. Prince and E. Salas, “Flight Simulator Training Effectiveness: A Meta-
Analysis”; Peter Cohen, James Kulik and Chen-Lin Kulik, “Educational Outcomes of Tutoring.”
131